Orissa

Rayagada

CC/130/2021

Kishan Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manaj Ku Thakur MC Funds Foods Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__130_______/2021                                    Date.    11.11 . 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Kishan Kumar  Sahu, At:D.P.Camp, Po:Therubali, Dist:Rayagada,Odisha,765 018, Cell No. 7504105105,  7205340143.

                                                                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

Sri   Manoj Kumar  Thakur, MC Funs Foods Pvt. Ltd.,  Unit – K.No. 742, Street No. 6, Near Rana  Dharma Kanta  Gurudwara, Road   Sirspur,  Delhi-110042.   Cell No. 701843989.

                                                                                                … Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

 

The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non supply  MC Funs products  i.e.    Curcurey against   received  payment  a   sum  of Rs.2,02,000/-  from the complainant  as per  agreement  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither   entering in to appear before the Commission nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 3(three) months    for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing    from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the   Act. Hence the O.Ps.  were set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

 

         FINDINGS.

                Undisputedly  the  complainant  had paid  an amount of Rs.2,000/-  to the O.P.  on  Dt.13.11.2020  in shape of  transferred the same  amount  in to the bank   account  of the  O.P.  towards   registration fees.  Again  on Dt.  21.11.2020  a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00  (Rupees  two lakhs)only   had  transferred  to the  O.Ps bank account   against advance money  for supply   of goods from  MC  Funs Foods Pvt. Ltd.  to   the complainant (copies  of the bank statement  is available  in the file  which is marked as  Annexure=I).  Further the  O.P.  in their  E-mail   dated.13.2.2021   assured  to the complainant   “your payment return  by company within  three months  as per company agreement rules”(copies of the same is available  in the file which is marked as Annexure-2). 

The main grievance of the complainant is that  as per the agreement the O.P. had neither   supplied  goods  from  the  MC   Funs  Foods Pvt.  Ltd   to the complainant   nor  refund  the  deposited amount a   sum  of Rs.2,02,000.00  inspite of  repeated contact to the O.P. from time to time.  Hence this C.C. case.

In the instant case,   there was contract between the parties that is to be examined  to what exent its obligations are fulfilled.  The O.Ps in the  instant case had made an  agreement  on Dt. 13.11.2020  with the  complainant to supply of goods  from  MC Funs Foods Pvt. Ltd. To that effect  they made an agreement with the complainant and  thereafter the O.P.  had not supplied the above items to the complainant and not contacted with the complainant inspite of repeated  phone call by the complainant.  This has undoubtedly   made the  complainant aggrieved and approached   this District commission   against the O.Ps on grounds of breach of contract/agreement.  

In this connection this  Commission   referred the Section-73 of the Indian Contract  Act.

Section- 73 in The Indian Contract Act

            Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.

In view of the Sec.73 of the Indian Contract Act, we passed the order and  disposed of the matter with the following direction.

From this  it is evident  that  the O.P. has failed  to fulfil  his commitment  to the complainant. This  amounts  to  breach  of  agreement on his part, where as the complainant  on his part  has discharged  his duty  by    transmitted an amount of total  Rs.2,02,000/- to the bank  account of the  O.P. on Dt.13,11,2020 and Dt.21.11.2020 respectively   for  beginning  curcury  product  purchase and sale   business  at  Rayagada  area of  Odisha for livelihood of the complainant.

            It is held and reported  in C.P.R.-1993 (1) page No. 420   The Hon’ble  West Bengal  State C.D.R. Commission, where  in  observed   “When one  not perform  his part of contract it amounts  to deficiency in service.”.  In the light  of this ruling  we hold that the  O.P. has not performed   his part of the contract by not  sending   the product   or  refund the deposited  amount    to the complainant .                                        

The O.P has not filed a single piece of document to substantiate  his case. Hence, we believed the contentions alleged against the O.P and  allowed the complaint in part against the O.P and passed the order on the basis  of the  above contract  Act.

This District   commission  found  in the present case in  hand there is a gross neglience and deficiency  of  service  on the  part  of  O.P. for non  refund   of   received  money  from the complainant.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed

.                               ORDER

        In resultant  the complaint  is allowed in part on exparte.

The Opposite  Party is directed to refund the  invested amount a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- (Rupees  two  lakhs  two thousand )only  along with  interest  @ Rs.9% per annum  from the date of  respective deposit  i.e on 21.11.2020  till realization  to the complainant with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order .  Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Supply the copy of order  to the parties.

Dictated and corrected by me.

        Pronounced on this  11th   day  of  November , 2021.

                                               

Member.                                    President